This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
In the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
[1998] SGHC 413
OS 14/1996
Between
Indian Overseas Bank |
… Plaintiff
And
Notandas S/O Premchand Jamnadas Udasi |
… Defendant
grounds of decision
This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. |
Indian Overseas Bank v Notandas S/O Premchand Jamnadas Udasi
[1998] SGHC 413
OS 14/1996
Kan Ting Chiu J
30 December 1998
Kan Ting Chiu J
30 December 1998
1
Judgment :
Judgment :
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A: There were no changes.
13
14
15
16
17
In this regard, we would like to put forth the following points:-1) As mentioned in our earlier letter dated 25th
18
19
20 19. The firm replied on 8 July 1994 stating inter alia
21 with no reference to compound interest.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 26. Counsel was relying on clause 4(cc) of the mortgage that
29
30
31
32 Kan Ting Chiu
33 Judge
Kan Ting Chiu J |
N Sreenivasan (Derrick Ravi & Partners) with Charles Lin (Donaldson & Burkinshaw) for the plaintiff
Samuel Chacko (Manjit Samuel & Partners) for the defendant
Samuel Chacko (Manjit Samuel & Partners) for the defendant
This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
Version No 1: 11 Sep 2026 (01:05 hrs)